Would you spend £870 on a carrier bag?

French fashion house launched an £870 version of its paper carrier bag - and it sold out

French fashion house Balenciaga has taken the unusual step of launching a new shopping bag - which bears a striking resemblance to the one you get for free when you shop with the brand. This bag, however, will set you back $1,100 (£870).

See also: Pair of vintage Apple trainers up for auction

See also: Chanel slammed for £1,100 boomerang


The company describes it as a 'plain white leather tote', stamped 'Balenciaga' in the company's signature black font. It also has black leather handles and silver 'hardware'. It hasn't escaped people's notice, however, that on a casual first glance it looks like a bog standard paper carrier bag. As one Twitter user said, "That bag better come with $1,099 in side of it".

If you thought that would be enough to put people off the bag, however, then think again, because it has already sold out online - and you'll have to sign up to be notified when it's back in stock.

Why?

The fashion house seems to have spotted a gap in the market. It wasn't so long ago that it launched the designer bag that was the spitting image of the Ikea bag but cost £1,700 - and before that, its own version of a zippered laundry bag.

It perhaps shouldn't come as a huge surprise. This is what passes for cheeky humour in the fashion world - mocking the pursuit of the most fashionable 'it bags', and enjoying the reaction of outraged shoppers. It's not the first brand to take this approach either, as Chanel famously launched its own take on leather shopping bags eight years ago, and recently launched a boomerang.

What next you might ask? A £2,000 shopping basket? Actually fashion insiders have already seen the next hilarious take on the 'it bag' from the brand. A leather version of a plastic shopping bag, and a high end version of a straw beach bag should hit the shelves in time for the Autumn/Winter season.

But what do you think? Would you buy one? Are you enjoying the joke? Or is there something vaguely distasteful about the whole thing?

Shopping: when spending more isn't always better

Shopping: when spending more isn't always better